Ranger - News To Shock

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » November 26th, 2005, 3:14 pm

to ranger. First off all a wise you succes with your rowing. But I have a few remarks. First I will tell something about my background. I original come from track and field. I wasn's a topatlete but also no slauch. some off my pb,s were. 100 m 11.5 longjump just short off 7 m. highjump 1.94 javelin 55 m. shotput 15 m. due to an kneeinjurie I had to stop. After that I did fitness, my pb in the benchpress was over 150 kg. There I learned to know the concept2 and around the year 2000 I competed 2 years. my 2 k pb was 6.14.7 my 30 min pb was 8712 meters. I had to stop due to a weak back. I rowed 3/4 times a week and did intervals 1000/1500 meters and 5 k. for most off the training. To cut the story short after 4 years of not rowing I started to row again 2 months ago and will see what it will bring me. My back is still a weak point. I been reading this forum for a couple off weeks and hear you talking about he way you train. Coming out off track and field I know that the most important factor for your performance is your personel talent. Also the way you have to train is not equal for everyone. For example a pure sprinter can train as much as he will but he will never be a good endurance atleet. And on the other hand a good long distance runner will never be a good sprinter/jumper. I think for rowing there are more than one ways of training, this accourding to your personal talent. I think a persoon has to train his strongpoints to reachs his best. Not his weak points. Why? Someone with more fasttwitch musclefibers will performe best if he trains from the shorters distances. And for a person with more slow mussle fibers, he is better off with the longer way off training. This way he trains what he gots and not what he doesn't have. Person 1 will row a very good 500/1000 meter but his 10 k and more don,t will be so good. he is simple not sueted for that. Persoon 2 will have great times on the longer rows but his 500/1000 will never be top. He simple has't the talent for that. If I can come back to track and field for example. This being a very developed sport. There are no atletes who performed very well on the marathon and could also run a very good 1500/5000 meters. certainly not at the same time. training for a marathon makes you a good marathon runner not a good middle distance runner. I think this apples for al sports and thus also for rowing. What do you say/think about this? greatings Henry

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 26th, 2005, 3:15 pm

I am happy to get to Boston on my own if I qualify for WIRC but C2 does not want to fly me there. That's up to them. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 26th, 2005, 3:22 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If I can come back to track and field for example. This being a very developed sport. There are no atletes who performed very well on the marathon and could also run a very good 1500/5000 meters. certainly not at the same time. </td></tr></table> Rowing is a pretty odd sport, I think, and not at all parallel to running. In rowing, if they want to be, the best 2K rowers are also the best marathoners and vice versa. There is no problem with gravity, and the 2K takes both enormous full body power _and_ enormous endurance. To be the best in the 2K, you have to be both a sprinter and a marathoner, e pluribus unum. ranger

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » November 26th, 2005, 3:57 pm

am very small-boned. I have very small wrists and ankles, etc. This has been somewhat of a problem over the course of my athletic life. For instance, out running, I have sprained (and broken?) my ankles many times and I don't have much power in my wrists (which was a problem for canoeing). ranger I have to disagree on this one, being small boned is a huge plus for running, not a disadvantance. Look at all good runners they are all very light even most sprinters are lightweights. And the thing you say about good rowings being good marathonrunner. That's not true, good lightweightrowers run well, the plus 90kg rowers don't. The same goes for cycles, the light ones run well, the more heavy good cyclers don't And about rowing a good 2 k yes you do need a good endurance and yes you do nee a lot of power. But thats not the same as being a marathoner or being a sprinter. Sprinting is flat out going and not needing any endurence. Marathoning is all endurance and being able to go on after your carbohydrates are burned up.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 26th, 2005, 4:09 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(hjs @ Nov 26 2005, 02:57 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>am very small-boned. I have very small wrists and ankles, etc. This has been somewhat of a problem over the course of my athletic life. For instance, out running, I have sprained (and broken?) my ankles many times and I don't have much power in my wrists (which was a problem for canoeing). ranger I have to disagree on this one, being small boned is a huge plus for running, not a disadvantance. Look at all good runners they are all very light even most sprinters are lightweights. And the thing you say about good rowings being good marathonrunner. That's not true, good lightweightrowers run well, the plus 90kg rowers don't. The same goes for cycles, the light ones run well, the more heavy good cyclers don't And about rowing a good 2 k yes you do need a good endurance and yes you do nee a lot of power. But thats not the same as being a marathoner or being a sprinter. Sprinting is flat out going and not needing any endurence. Marathoning is all endurance and being able to go on after your carbohydrates are burned up. </td></tr></table> Yes, being small-boned is great for both running and being a lightweight. That was my point. Sorry to disagree, but to do a 2K, you have to have both great endurance and great power. If they want to be, the best 2K rowers are also the best marathon rowers, and vice versa. ranger

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » November 26th, 2005, 4:14 pm

ok ranger I will open a new tread on the subject of rowing/running. We will see ok

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » November 26th, 2005, 4:24 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 26 2005, 12:09 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Sorry to disagree, but to do a 2K, you have to have both great endurance and great power. If they want to be, the best 2K rowers are also the best marathon rowers, and vice versa. ranger[right] </td></tr></table> Rod Freed has the fastest 50+ lwt times for the: 5k 30 minutes 6k 10k 60 minutes half marathon

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » November 26th, 2005, 7:33 pm

I see from your avatar Ranger that you are still supporting C2 and their philosophies and practises (strange given what you have written) - otherwise you would have removed it. Yet I also assume that if you do row at a qualifying race AND meet the qualifying standard you will REFUSE any financial support from them to get to Boston on principal, giving your ongoing criticism of how they dispense financial support. Just for the record could you confirm this once and for all ? George

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 27th, 2005, 7:42 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(george nz @ Nov 26 2005, 06:33 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I see from your avatar Ranger that you are still supporting C2 and their philosophies and practises (strange given what you have written) - otherwise you would have removed it. Yet I also assume that if you do row at a qualifying race AND meet the qualifying standard you will REFUSE any financial support from them to get to Boston on principal, giving your ongoing criticism of how they dispense financial support. Just for the record could you confirm this once and for all ? George </td></tr></table> At the moment, qualification for the CRASH-Bs is fully specified, open, and fair. In almost all cases, qualification times are also selection times, or if there are too many qualifiers at a venue, selection is based on relative margins under the qualification times. No reason to object to this process. Both qualification and selection are athletic contests, not closed door, arbitrary decisions that have nothing to do with the relative quality of the 2Ks rowed. At any given venue, those with weaker rows are not selected over those with stronger rows. If selection for the USIRT were similar, I would have no objection to it, either, and would be delighted to compete for a spot. In fact, my suggestion is exactly that qualification for the USIRT be put on basis that is similar to qualification for the CRASH-Bs--fully specified, fair, open, objective. Beyond that, I have no problem with C2. ranger

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » November 27th, 2005, 6:12 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 28 2005, 12:42 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(george nz @ Nov 26 2005, 06:33 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I see from your avatar Ranger that you are still supporting C2 and their philosophies and practises (strange given what you have written) - otherwise you would have removed it. Yet I also assume that if you do row at a qualifying race AND meet the qualifying standard you will REFUSE any financial support from them to get to Boston on principal, giving your ongoing criticism of how they dispense financial support. Just for the record could you confirm this once and for all ? George </td></tr></table> At the moment, qualification for the CRASH-Bs is fully specified, open, and fair. In almost all cases, qualification times are also selection times, or if there are too many qualifiers at a venue, selection is based on relative margins under the qualification times. No reason to object to this process. Both qualification and selection are athletic contests, not closed door, arbitrary decisions that have nothing to do with the relative quality of the 2Ks rowed. At any given venue, those with weaker rows are not selected over those with stronger rows. If selection for the USIRT were similar, I would have no objection to it, either, and would be delighted to compete for a spot. In fact, my suggestion is exactly that qualification for the USIRT be put on basis that is similar to qualification for the CRASH-Bs--fully specified, fair, open, objective. Beyond that, I have no problem with C2. ranger </td></tr></table> So would you like to answer the question THIS TIME ... why do you still have the avatar given your comments regarding the development squad, and will you take C2's money for a trip to Boston given your criticism of the way they dispense funds. George

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » November 27th, 2005, 6:22 pm

George, Maybe he likes having the avatar there. Actually, that's probably why he has it there. Why do you still have your avatar there?

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » November 27th, 2005, 6:43 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Nov 28 2005, 11:22 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>George, Maybe he likes having the avatar there. Actually, that's probably why he has it there. Why do you still have your avatar there? </td></tr></table> John you love an argument No problem with 'his' avatar it is th USIRD flag that interest me. Seems inconguous given his comments of the past few weeks, but then maybe he does not know how to remove it or is not able to. I guess he could contact C2 to do that but then that would be communication with C2 and he does not like that either - otherwise many of his other concerns would have been clarified by now. George ps I like our avatar, do you have an affinity for sparrows

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » November 27th, 2005, 7:29 pm

George, Since you like your avatar, and Rich likes his, shouldn't you remove yours if he removes his? I'm just curious.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » November 27th, 2005, 7:31 pm

p.s. It's a duck. You should know this, George, since ducks have feathers.

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » November 27th, 2005, 9:28 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Nov 28 2005, 12:31 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>p.s. It's a duck. You should know this, George, since ducks have feathers. </td></tr></table> Tks John for the motivation - have changed the avatar so you dont embarass yourself anymore. George

Concept2 Forum

Ranger - News To Shock

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions